---

hardcore_gamer said:
I am sorry, but anyone who has even played the game for more then just 10 min knows that this is crap.

Painkiller has a large collection of very varied monsters. In fact, fallowing the release of the original Painkiller one of the things that many people praised it for were the large amounts of different monsters.

---

---

Belial said:

Cool weapon design wasted on a boring game.

---

---

Quast said:
Painkillers ultimate failing imo, was to take a workable idea that SS brought to the table and turn it into a solo experience for some goddamn reason I can't fathom. SS was built from the ground up to be a coop slug-fest through and through, which I can imagine is why large parts of the SS games are wide open areas, to afford room for 8 players running around. You cannot have that in painkiller, many of the levels are pretty damn claustrophobic in nature and honestly, would suck to try and coop if it was even available.

---

---

Captain Red said:

They actually added Co-Op for Hell and Damnation though I have no idea if it's worth a damn.

---

---

TheDarkArchon said:


That brings up another point of contention I have with the game. The game feels like it's railroading your weapon choices by limiting the available ammo to one or two types at a time, which means the weapons charm wear off quicker than they should.

---

---

Technician said:
That generic rock tune that could play when a horde of monsters would rush on screen was annoying as fuck.

Painkiller had some great maps, but having to start-stop-horde-checkpoint, start-stop-horde-checkpoint every new room was grating. That kind of game mechanic is not appropriate for a fast action FPS.

---